.MTIy.MTc4

From Georgian Papers Programme Transcription Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

February 3d, 1861

    My Dear Brother,

    I received your favor of the
23d Inst on today, having been absent from home
at Nashville for a week past.  While in the
Supreme Court room, Mr. R. C. Foster spoke to me, and
said, he had brought suit against you, but that
you had moved your fence out, and that he was
perfectly willing, that I should decide the case.  I
of course, would not settle a matter of dispute
between my brother & another person!

    Now, the only thing you have to do, is to
employ a ^good Lawyer, and to prove by the [struck-through] persons, where
Fosters line is marked, between you & him, and that said
marked line conforms to the division made between
Foster & Fogg, or rather between Wheatson  & Tisdales heirs.

    You can get the ^certified copies of the following papers
at Brownsville, viz:  The division between Tisdales heirs & Wheaton
it is a map, and the deed of partition or a decree of partition,
which accompanies it, which shows, what trees [underscored] are marked
or called for in said division, of your land (being 640
acres, originally,) and Foster’s line calls for said trees [underscored] and then
show the said Plat of division to the person who knows
your & Fosters  line, and let them compare said description
of corner’s with the living trees now ["trees now" underscored] standing, and
thereby prove, that you are not over Fosters line, and
no marked line is north of the line ["no...line" is underscored], you claim, and that
the true line between you and Foster, is the same
that is shown by the original division, and that your
deed, covers the division assigned to Fogg by said division
map, as the lines were originally made in said division,
in 1822, as appears from the appearance of the marks and
the description of Trees [are?] marked [underscored] and called [underscored] for as
corners [underscored]—   If I was there, I could make out your
whole title by title papers on record, and then it
is necessary, to prove the line marked, is in conformity
with said division – You should have a surveyor
to test it, which I will tell you, when I come down.

    Mr. Fogg, knows nothing about the land,
he never saw it, and knows not where his lines are,
except by deeds & other papers, all of which is of Record,
and he is only liable to you, after you have
defended your title & you are convicted, or the suit
decided against you, for $3. per acre & the interest, for what=
=ever quantity you have in acres.

    I will see him for you and I know
what he will say, that he is surprised to hear
about any dispute, and there need be no difficulty,
if you can establish the lines ["can...lines" is underscored], as originally run and
marked ["originally...marked" is underscored], if they are in conformity with the Plat & deed
or decree of division.  If he has a copy of said division
I will examine it with him and explain the whole
matter to him, and get him to write out his opinion
as to the law --  I know the law in relation
to boundary: viz :  that ”?the Grant or deed of division, must
correspond with the line, or rather the marked trees ["marked trees" is underscored]
“must correspond with the deed, and when ^said boundaries are acquiesced in
“for a long time, they cannot be changed ["cannot be changed" is underscored], though
“they may not have been run correctly when the
“survey was made”?.  Now, has Mr. Foster any other line
north of the one you claim to?  Can you ^prove by
any one ^that the line you claim to, is Fosters line & it does conform
to the original line, between Wheaton & Tisdale?  Can you prove
that the line you claim to, is the southern boundary of
the land you purchased of Fogg, and that it is the
same line, on the Plat of division between Tisdale heirs
& Fogg and Wheaton?  These facts being proven,
and you producing a chain title from the grant
down to you, or from the division down to you,
Foster cannot gain it.  See Talliferro & Rogers – Foggs agents.

    I am before the People a candidate
to represent them in the convention, but I hope
we shall have no convention and shall vote against it.

    You should vote against a convention, and at the
sametime, vote for a Union man ["Union man" is underscored], not a man, who
says he is for the Union & will vote to secede [underscored] by the 4th of March.
I suppose you will vote that way, unless you have changed
since I saw you!   I may be down shortly, if we have
no convention!  Did you get my letter?   My family,
with the exception of William Allison, who is quite low, are all
well.  I heard from home at Brookville.  All well.

            Yours truly,
            John S. Claybrooke